Currys forced refund

adam.mt

As an alternative the 630 can be purchased here:
£156.04 - http://www.elecosave.co.uk/tomtom-go-630-gps-for-europe--skp-pwr-adc-in-car-mains-adapter---case-for-tomtom-go-series-gps-na-305219-p.asp?fm_c=38&fm_key=1e7853c7f2906734a91b0facbc03f516&fm_src=froogle
£155.07 - http://www.edock.tv/I-C-E-/Sat-Nav/TOMTOM-Go-630-GPS-for-Europe-USB-retractable-cable/prod_3827.html

smcaul

Jakg wrote: »

They are offering to put the customer back in the position they were in before with a full refund - don't see whats unreasonable about that.

No they're not, the position the OP was in before was with a satnav with a faulty charger - that is the state to which the OP must be returned to. The satnav is the property of the owner, you do not automatically relinquish the rights to your property just because you send it for repair!!! Get a grip!!

And as for what is unreasonable, having your property taken off of you and given a sum of money in return at their discretion is pretty unreasonable if you ask me!!!!

If I were the OP I would have already started proceedings on moneyclaimonline - I think their treatment by Currys is nothing short of disgusting!!!

Equaliser123

Jakg wrote: »

They are offering to put the customer back in the position they were in before with a full refund - don't see whats unreasonable about that.

..

It is academic. The remedy for breach of contract is to be put into the position OP would have been in had the contract been performed correctly - i.e. a charger which works.

adam.mt

Equaliser123 wrote: »

It is academic. The remedy for breach of contract is to be put into the position OP would have been in had the contract been performed correctly - i.e. a charger which works.

Well it's not actually that straight forward is it? Else, misprices would have to be honoured once payment is taken (unless a really obvious mistake), and yet they don't.

Googlewhacker

Equaliser123 wrote: »

Ah. Gotcha.

Lol that's not like you to be on the ball!!!

adam.mt

Seems the best path forward is for the OP to write a letter of complaint to head office and see what they offer. If it doesn't come up trumps then the next stage of action can be argued out here.

Googlewhacker

Mr_Payne wrote: »

Unfortunately I said that I wanted my item back and not a refund, and so the Currys head office lady, after laughing at me, agreed not to give me a refund. So now I’m left without a Sat Nav or my money wondering what to do next.

I hope you got her name and are writing a complaint about how she sorted your problem out

smcaul

adam.mt wrote: »

Well it's not actually that straight forward is it? Else, misprices would have to be honoured once payment is taken (unless a really obvious mistake), and yet they don't.

Once payment is taken they do have to be honored, that is when the contract is formed -offer, acceptance and consideration! The only time that this seems to be different is when the order is online and the seller has in the T&C's that the contract is not formed until goods are dispatched - which, is normally when payment is taken anyway.

adam.mt

Thanks smcaul, but there's been a couple of cases on here in the last few weeks where the 'general opinion' has been different to that! (In particular, that a refund is allowable rather than having to fulfil the contract; despite the fact that the retailer could actually do so if prepared to stomach a loss). Hence, my point.

Equaliser123

adam.mt wrote: »

Thanks smcaul, but there's been a couple of cases on here in the last few weeks where the 'general opinion' has been different to that! (In particular, that a refund is allowable rather than having to fulfil the contract; despite the fact that the retailer could actually do so if prepared to stomach a loss). Hence, my point.

The law has been around since the 1800's - breach of contract entitles the innocent party to be put into the position it ought to have been in had the contract been performed correctly.

Don't think it really matters what the "general opinion" is on an internet forum.